And as stupid as tort law seems when someone say, throws a wiimote into a television screen and blames Nintendo, there's an easy precaution. Nintendo could have put some clear warnings along with the wiimotes, something like "be careful not to let these fly out of your hands and break the tv, window, mirrors, or your commemorative plate collection."
You mean like the unskippable warning message before the start of every game to not drop or throw the wiimote, and the warnings on the inside of the packaging, and the documentation?
Does tort law seem stupid now? Or just the 99% of the population that is too thick to read warnings and use common sense?
> Actually that's the point. There is no difference between downloadng a thousand websites and downloading a movie.
Unless the webpages are megabytes each there is. But that's not the point.
The point is the rate of information consumption. A large webpage (say, a few hundred k) will take longer to read than will the same amount of movie file. If the video rate is high enough, a few hundred kilobytes will pass in a few seconds or less.
The funny thing is that before the days of HD video, the ISPs sold their 'faster-than-dialup' service as 'fast' and 'unlimited'. I'm not sure why they put 'unlimited' in there, but they're paying for it now. I for one have no sympathy
Some people don't understand the concept of 'bandwidth'. They don't realize that downloading that movie from bittorrent is much more data than pulling down one page of the web, except that one 'takes longer' than the other.
The rest of the bandwidth hogs point to the 'unlimited' marketing. Until the marketing of the service changes (and people are told about their limits and are capable of measuring them), you're still going to get grief.
Had I linked to a topic that existed (instead of 'Of Course Not' as the search term... it's a joke: laugh) you would have been redirected to that page, instead of being directed to possible options.
Connecting to wireless after wakeup is a weakpoint in XP too. The wireless internet service tends to crash and burn after anywhere from five to ten resumes.
She's paying someone to provide a service over the web. It isn't paying for web hosting. And the two are different: don't even pretend that they're not. For one, webhosts generally don't care what you post, so long as it isn't illegal materials, or take up a disproportionate share of system resources.
For one, if I am paying for a service (say, Flickr), I'll have a hard time moving my stuff to another host -- the data is not in a commodity format. But if I'm paying a company for an account on a web server, I can keep regular backups of my files, and be online within minutes or hours if my existing host cuts me off. The difference is that one is a commodity, the other is not.
Was it sensible? Apparently not, given the outcome.
Was it economical? Maybe. If you see 'lowest cost' as economical, then yes. But I digress...
The core of the trouble is that this photographer's stuff was smashed off the net with no warning.
You're right, sometimes it's not feasible to host your stuff on your home computer. Indeed, I don't think it's a good idea. But there are better options: third party hosting is probably the better bet. Whether it's good shared hosting, a virtual server, or an entry-level dedicated server -- that's a far better solution than flickr et al.
I, personally, have been burned by way too many 'free' services. The problem is that (even if they aren't 'free', but instead 'low-cost') they can go away at any time. Witness: Google Answers, Yahoo Photos, and many of those free web hosts from years ago.
The only reasonable solution I've found is to pay money for a baseline service (the web hosting), then run what you want on that (blog, photo site, etc). You're far less likely to be burned, it's easier to move your data elsewhere (web hosting is essentially a commodity), and it's far easier to back up data in, say, Gallery than your photos on flickr.
Most of those email are plain-text. Is it really necessary to pdf them? Why don't they print them out, then take a picture of the printout on a wooden table, and post *that* to the web.
It's nice that an anti-choice bigot came along and downmodded all the posts that criticised the 'anti-choice' label.
Regardless...
>>> if a person does not want to get pregnant, then they should not be having sex
I suppose she asked for it, didn't she?
Also, as other posters have enumerated: you're mistaking a parasite for a human again...
I sliced my hand on a knife the other day. Must have killed thousands of skin cells. Because we could theoretically clone humans, does that make me a mass murderer?
They are not 'pro-life'. If they were, they would fighting militantly against anything which ends human life prematurely. Since not all of them do that, it's a misnomer. An award for pernicious irony goes out to the antiabortionist freaks who kill abortion doctors.
More appropriate terms are 'anti-choice' (my personal preference) or 'anti-abortion'.
No, DRM is like a car that starts out to being speed limited to X mph, then the manufacturer of that car then dropping that limit to X-10, etc, and can't be driven on 'unapproved' roads or parked in 'unapproved' parking spaces, and can't be driven by 'unauthorized' people.
There might be an upside to any one of those restrictions (in carjackings, for example, or police chases). But what about the problems such restrictions cause? Injured/cardiac arrest/stroke and in your car? Can't rush yourself to the hospital if you're limited to the maximum posted limit? Neither could someone else necessarily drive you.
Captcha: 'paralyze'. How appropriate to the subject matter...
How do you know your power is really good? Have you tested it? Spending a lot on a power supply is not a guarantee of good power. Might conceivably be your motherboard, too, but that's a long shot.
I've got lots of counterexamples -- 3 emachines PCs, each about three years old, with 160 GB hardrives, cheapo power supplies and no fans besides the CPU heatsink one. All are running fine. My 2 x 250 Seagate drives at home have been running for close to a year and a half now and are fine.
I hate to say it, but you must be doing something wrong. How many other people have this problem of hard drives magically dying every few months?
Slashdot Mirror
And as stupid as tort law seems when someone say, throws a wiimote into a television screen and blames Nintendo, there's an easy precaution. Nintendo could have put some clear warnings along with the wiimotes, something like "be careful not to let these fly out of your hands and break the tv, window, mirrors, or your commemorative plate collection."
You mean like the unskippable warning message before the start of every game to not drop or throw the wiimote, and the warnings on the inside of the packaging, and the documentation?
Does tort law seem stupid now? Or just the 99% of the population that is too thick to read warnings and use common sense?
Except it's on a saturday. Not all companies expect people to work 170 hours a week...
-1, Bad Analogy
The power companies don't advertise "$40 a month for unlimited power".
> Actually that's the point. There is no difference between downloadng a thousand websites and downloading a movie.
Unless the webpages are megabytes each there is. But that's not the point.
The point is the rate of information consumption. A large webpage (say, a few hundred k) will take longer to read than will the same amount of movie file. If the video rate is high enough, a few hundred kilobytes will pass in a few seconds or less.
The funny thing is that before the days of HD video, the ISPs sold their 'faster-than-dialup' service as 'fast' and 'unlimited'. I'm not sure why they put 'unlimited' in there, but they're paying for it now. I for one have no sympathy
Some people don't understand the concept of 'bandwidth'. They don't realize that downloading that movie from bittorrent is much more data than pulling down one page of the web, except that one 'takes longer' than the other.
The rest of the bandwidth hogs point to the 'unlimited' marketing. Until the marketing of the service changes (and people are told about their limits and are capable of measuring them), you're still going to get grief.
Every Maxtor drive I've bought has been dead within 2 years: about 50% of them are dead in a year or less.
Western Digital drives die with about an 80% probability just after their 3-year warranty expires.
Hitachi drives aren't much better.
That's strange, I remember reading about MVC long before anyone had heard of Ruby...
You are, or at least so far as hype == marketing.
Ha! And the article of the day on the wikimedia fundraising blog is 'Can you trust wikipedia'? http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ Pfft.
*sigh*
Had I linked to a topic that existed (instead of 'Of Course Not' as the search term... it's a joke: laugh) you would have been redirected to that page, instead of being directed to possible options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Of%20Course%20Not
Connecting to wireless after wakeup is a weakpoint in XP too. The wireless internet service tends to crash and burn after anywhere from five to ten resumes.
She's paying someone to provide a service over the web. It isn't paying for web hosting. And the two are different: don't even pretend that they're not. For one, webhosts generally don't care what you post, so long as it isn't illegal materials, or take up a disproportionate share of system resources.
For one, if I am paying for a service (say, Flickr), I'll have a hard time moving my stuff to another host -- the data is not in a commodity format. But if I'm paying a company for an account on a web server, I can keep regular backups of my files, and be online within minutes or hours if my existing host cuts me off. The difference is that one is a commodity, the other is not.
Was it sensible? Apparently not, given the outcome.
Was it economical? Maybe. If you see 'lowest cost' as economical, then yes. But I digress...
The core of the trouble is that this photographer's stuff was smashed off the net with no warning.
You're right, sometimes it's not feasible to host your stuff on your home computer. Indeed, I don't think it's a good idea. But there are better options: third party hosting is probably the better bet. Whether it's good shared hosting, a virtual server, or an entry-level dedicated server -- that's a far better solution than flickr et al.
I, personally, have been burned by way too many 'free' services. The problem is that (even if they aren't 'free', but instead 'low-cost') they can go away at any time. Witness: Google Answers, Yahoo Photos, and many of those free web hosts from years ago.
The only reasonable solution I've found is to pay money for a baseline service (the web hosting), then run what you want on that (blog, photo site, etc). You're far less likely to be burned, it's easier to move your data elsewhere (web hosting is essentially a commodity), and it's far easier to back up data in, say, Gallery than your photos on flickr.
Apparently, then, it would matter little if it was a paid service or not.... I think my point still holds, just knock out the word 'free'.
You should host your own stuff, instead of using using 'free' web-services, if it's important.
...meanwhile, you pay more for the products advertised, because the money was spent on advertising.
Have no illusions...
They could have been faked, then printed, then scanned? How does that demonstrate that they're authentic?
Most of those email are plain-text. Is it really necessary to pdf them? Why don't they print them out, then take a picture of the printout on a wooden table, and post *that* to the web.
It's nice that an anti-choice bigot came along and downmodded all the posts that criticised the 'anti-choice' label. Regardless... >>> if a person does not want to get pregnant, then they should not be having sex I suppose she asked for it, didn't she? Also, as other posters have enumerated: you're mistaking a parasite for a human again... I sliced my hand on a knife the other day. Must have killed thousands of skin cells. Because we could theoretically clone humans, does that make me a mass murderer?
/tangent
They are not 'pro-life'. If they were, they would fighting militantly against anything which ends human life prematurely. Since not all of them do that, it's a misnomer. An award for pernicious irony goes out to the antiabortionist freaks who kill abortion doctors.
More appropriate terms are 'anti-choice' (my personal preference) or 'anti-abortion'.
No, DRM is like a car that starts out to being speed limited to X mph, then the manufacturer of that car then dropping that limit to X-10, etc, and can't be driven on 'unapproved' roads or parked in 'unapproved' parking spaces, and can't be driven by 'unauthorized' people.
There might be an upside to any one of those restrictions (in carjackings, for example, or police chases). But what about the problems such restrictions cause? Injured/cardiac arrest/stroke and in your car? Can't rush yourself to the hospital if you're limited to the maximum posted limit? Neither could someone else necessarily drive you.
Captcha: 'paralyze'. How appropriate to the subject matter...
And you're criticising me?
Note my use of the term 'counterexample'. Hell, my point is better than GGP's complaints from less than your precious 20 data points worth of drives.
How do you know your power is really good? Have you tested it? Spending a lot on a power supply is not a guarantee of good power. Might conceivably be your motherboard, too, but that's a long shot.
I've got lots of counterexamples -- 3 emachines PCs, each about three years old, with 160 GB hardrives, cheapo power supplies and no fans besides the CPU heatsink one. All are running fine. My 2 x 250 Seagate drives at home have been running for close to a year and a half now and are fine.
I hate to say it, but you must be doing something wrong. How many other people have this problem of hard drives magically dying every few months?
It must be.
Rsync: it's the poor man's RAID.